Comments by "RiC David" (@RiC_David) on "Most Controversial Magazine Covers Ever" video.

Controversial because it was taken hours before Lennon was shot dead? These days it would be taken after he was shot dead and I don't even know if it would be controversial. I feel like I'm the only guy who takes issue with having photos of the dead bodies of murder victims popping up on my screen like it's no big deal. As I speak, I have a close up of Trayvon Martin's face after being killed - shock and voyeuristic curiosity are placed well above respect, class, and dignity.
1
-- Let me explain something to these people. The BIGGEST "was it really racist? Maybe it was innocent" doubter is in my head and in the head of many/most black people. I/we WANT to believe that our society isn't really being that way. My black friend was strip searched while my white friend wasn't patted down and he's not wanting to believe it was racist. We DON'T ENJOY racism - that's the incredibly foolish perception of people on the outside who seem envious of the attention it gets [ctd]...
1
Yes they can. Other people can say "I don't like what they did". When they realise that they rely on other people to buy their magazine, they can smartly decide "maybe we'll listen to these people".
1
There's a section of people here who do not like to acknowledge the existence of racism. Unless somebody has a sign saying "I am being racist" they'll claim it wasn't racist. The latest example of this: OJ Simpson's skin is darkened. Dark skinned people (darker than myself) are often feared and prejudged as dangerous. A black man does a dangerous criminal thing and his skin is further darkened. Their response: I didn't notice it; the problem is that black people noticed and cared.
1
If there was a deeply ingrained fear and distrust of very white skinned men. There isn't. If you're going to compare two things then *one* variable must be changed - this is how you reach an accurate conclusion. For that comparison to work there would have to be no difference in America between being a dark skinned black man and a light skinned white man. I do wish people would think about this when making comparisons. Or just address the actual thing instead of making comparisons.
1
What offends me more with that is that most American men would still "a 16 year old? Oh no way - no way I would ever think a 16 year old looked attractive". It's just a little peeve of mine I've had since discussing sexuality and age in the past. I know why people are dishonest - they're trained to be, it's made clear that if they say otherwise they'll be seen as a bad person. I just wish more people would see through the bullshit.
1
I think their intention was missed but they were going for something deliberately shocking (somebody who did something "evil" being attractive, pleasant looking, and trendy) and so although their intention was missed, they were *trying* to shock so to blame people for being shocked is silly. It's not a point that works well without clarification.
1
..[ctd]..Why would ANYBODY enjoy knowing that their child's life will be seen as less valuable? Justice less probable? Loan rates higher? Jobs less likely? House values lower? Police harrssment frequent? WHO likes this? Nobody. I am like a health inspector. Am I looking for germs/racism? YES! Not because I like that there's an infestation but because I/we want to IDENTIFY it so it can be MADE RIGHT. I HATE hearing about this racism, not because I'm bored of it or I'm jealous that it's not...
1
..about people who look like me - I hate it because I don't want it to exist but it DOES. Not talking about it DOES NOT HELP. So we will talk about it and if you don't like that - fuck off! The reality is there IS an infestation and if you're going to claim that everything's fine and dandy then YOU are the problem! This is not the post racism age, this is the post racism acknowledging age - the age where NOTHING is so racist that people like yourself won't say "much ado about nothing". (End)
1
Subtle, insidious things are often wrongly thought to be harmless - that's why they're so insidious. It's a small amount of poison in the public water - it's noticeable but subtle enough that some people will be guaranteed to say "what's the big deal?!" No, if you photoshop a Jewish criminal's nose to make it longer/sharper/more "Jewish looking" - that is an extremely twisted and nasty thing to do. For some reason we have to make it about another race for people to realise how wrong it is.
1
"Dark skinned people (darker than myself) are often feared and prejudged as dangerous. A black man does a dangerous criminal thing and his skin is further darkened - this feeds the "fear the dark man" mentality that is already very problematic for dark skinned males. If a Jewish man had committed a crime and they photoshopped his nose to make it sharper/longer/more "Jewish looking" would you really have to ask "why is this bad exactly"?
1
I know we are all humans, you can go to my channel if you wish, watch some of my videos and tell me if I'm somebody who believes in separation You have said that I'm racist. Explain this. What you aren't understanding is that the biggest "Was this really racist?" is in my head, and the head of many many black people who *do not want to believe that societies are racist*. It doesn't feel good, we don't like racism existing, but when it's there we *acknowledge it*.We don't pretend it's not there
1
There's a difference between adding shadow and making his skintone darker though; darkening the brightness on the image isn't the same as darkening his skin tone. What they did to OJ, if done to a white person, would make them appear tanned. It's not covering him in shadow, it's making him appear to be a darker skinned black man in the same way skin tone of black females is sometimes deliberately lightened for white audiences, which is very insulting too.
1
--- I'm on the fence as to whether it's even worth engaging these people in discussion. When that's your starting position, you're already so far away from honestly seeing what's in front of your. The question I ask is why are they so compelled to claim that differential handling/treatment of black Americans is real when it's a reality seen and lived by millions? They're clearly invested - it's clearly personal. They defend it like they're defending themselves. Insisting *they're* not racist.
1
So if a Jewish person does something bad and they give him a longer, sharper, even more 'Jewish looking' nose, that's fine and it doesn't matter? It doesn't matter to you because you don't mind their racism. It matters to people who actually care about racism - particularly those directly affected. "Sensitive" is a popular and trendy cop out, utterly dishonest tactic used to claim that those who dislike racism should just dislking it - that the real problem is that they care about it racism.
1
You didn't notice it. This does not mean it was not done intentionally. It was done intentionally. They apologised for doing it intentionally. Other people aren't over sensitive - you have a complete lack of care. Dark skinned people (darker than myself) are often feared and prejudged as dangerous. A black man does a dangerous criminal thing and his skin is further darkened. This deliberately feeds fear and prejudice - to not care about this is the problem, that is *your* lack of care.
1